John Rawls and Utilitarianism

The social contract theory of John Rawls challenges utilitarianism by pointing out the impracticality of the theory. Mainly, in a society of utilitarians, a citizens rights could be completely ignored if injustice to this one citizen would benefit the rest of society. Rawls believes that a social contract theory, similar those proposed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, would be a more logical solution to the question of fairness in any government. Social contract theory in general and including the views of Rawls, is such that in a situation where a society is established of people who are self interested, rational, and equal, the rules of justice are established by what is mutually acceptable and agreed upon by all the people therein. This scenario of negotiating the laws of that society that will be commonly agreed upon and beneficial to all is what Rawls terms "The Original Position and Justification". Rawls states that for this system to work, all citizens must see themselves as being behind a "veil of ignorance". By this he means that all deciding parties in establishing the guidelines of justice (all citizens) must see themselves as equal to everyone paying no mind to there economic situation or anything else that they could keep in mind to negotiate a better situation to those qualities. For example, if everyone in this society has an equal amount of influence toward the establishing of specific laws, a rich man may propose that taxes should be equal for all rather than proportionate to ones assets. It is for this and similar situations that Rawls feels that everyone must become oblivious to themselves. Rawls believes that the foundational guideline agreed upon by the those in the original position will be composed of two parts. The first of these rules of justice being one that enforces equal rights and duties for all citizens and the later of the two one which regulates the powers and wealth of all citizens.

In the conception of utilitarianism possessed by Rawls, an impartial spectator and ideal legislator are necessary components. The impartial spectator is one who rational and sensitive to all of the desires of society. The impartial spectator must feel these desires as if they were his own desires and by doing such, give each of them priority over other desires and organize them into one system from which the ideal legislator tries to maximize satisfaction for all citizens by manipulating and adjusting the policy for that society. By this theory of utilitarianism, Rawls argues that the decision making process is being integrated into one conscience and that this system gives no mind to the individual whose rights and freedoms may be ignored because there beliefs are not widespread. He goes on to say "Utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons"(Singer p. 339).

Rawls argues that two principles of justice will emerge from the negotiations of the original position: "1.each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others, 2.social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to the positions and offices open to all." The first of these two principles suggests that everyone have an equal say in the election of a government official and equal power over the policies put into effect by that official. However, the second seems to suggest that if it benefits society, then inequalities of political power are acceptable. Although somewhat contradictory, this seems reasonable since getting the opinions of everyone every time an issue arose would be, to say the least, inefficient. According to Rawls, justice as fairness is far more acceptable than utilitarianism. An example taken from The Encyclopedia of Political Philosophy explains two situations, one acceptable by...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...JohnRawls, “Classical Utilitarianism”
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that distributes benefits and burdens in a society based on the goal of maximizing utility, defined as the satisfaction of desire. JohnRawls has developed a competing moral theory called Justice as Fairness, which yields significantly different insights into the proper structure of society than does Utilitarianism. This paper details three of Rawls's most convincing criticisms of Utilitarianism along with my comments as to the effectiveness of each argument. The criticisms include: • • How Utilitarianism views the distribution of resources in a society, How the distinction between persons is treated, and
Rawls argues in each case that Utilitarianism violates common-sense notions of justice. Distributive justice has to do with how the benefits and burdens of society are “spread” among its citizens. Consider the following simple distributions for a society as they bear on two groups that compose a society. Scheme 1 Group 1 Group 2 Utility = +500 Utility = +500 Total = +1000 Group 1 Group 2 Scheme 2 Utility = +1300 Utility = -200 Total = +1100
Let us suppose that distribution of utility in Scheme 1 is such that each member can live comfortably. However, members of groups below 0 are below the poverty level, struggle against disease, have poor...

...﻿Justice as Fairness
JohnRawls responds to the question of justice with his own theory of Liberalism. Liberalism utilizes a social contract as a conceptual basis from which moral reasoning can be considered just. Rawls claims that the best way to look at morality is by referring to the principles, which govern society, based on an initial situation of equality. He explains this initial situation of equality by proposing a hypothetical original position: “The guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the objet of an original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons would accept in an initial situation of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association” (Rawls, 204). This original situation is distinguished by a veil of ignorance under which individual bias is removed due to the unawareness of one’s future position in society. The purpose of the original situation is to determine the principles of justice that would result from people free from the distinctions of society. Rawls uses the principles of moral justification that are established from this original position to create a procedural form of justice.
In establishing this theory of “justice as fairness”, Rawls focuses on two key principles. The first principle refers to the importance of the protection of basic liberties. Rawls...

...Nozick on JohnRawls’ Theory of Justice
FEBRUARY 2, 2010
by Gabriel Hendin
JohnRawls’ “original position” is a hypothetical situation in which rational parties make social decisions under a veil of ignorance, so as to prevent attributing advantages to one party over another. Rawls’ difference principle states that inequalities among humans are to be redistributed equally to benefit all. Robert Nozick disagrees with John Rawls’s “original position” and “difference principle.” Nozick believes that historical principles are required in certain moral situations and notes that their existence is impossible if individuals deal under Rawls’s “veil of ignorance.” With regards to the difference principle, Nozick argues that the rich may not wish to fully cooperate with the poor in redistributing wealth, for their natural endowments break no laws. He also states that Rawls’ difference principle is morally arbitrary in the notion of the rich wanting to help the poor.
I agree with Nozick’s opposition to the original position. How could the original position always stand? If a state were to redistribute wealth, thus making a moral decision under the original position, how could the state assess each individual’s wealth and decide how to redistribute the wealth without lifting the veil and assessing each person’s social status? Similar decisions require a historical frame of...

...societal goals be designed so they are fair and just for all?
In what follows, I will attempt to portray the philosophy of JohnRawls with regard to the theory of societal justice. My aim is convey Rawls’ conception of justice. I will discuss his original position of equality and how the essential veil of ignorance collaborates with the original position to arrive at a societal ground zero. I will also address the two principles that Rawls believe would emerge from the original position to guide a just society.
Rawls aspires to investigate and present a conception of justice. He believes that, in order to create a just society, we must begin in a hypothetical place with no predetermined conceptions of social or economic status. No person would know his place in society, or what social or economic class he fits into. No one would be aware of his own intelligence or abilities. Further still, no person would know what assets or disadvantages were distributed to him by chance, generation, or inheritance. This hypothetical position of unknowing would create an “original position of equality” (Rawls, p. 498). From this original position, everyone is equal in all conceivable societal and economic terms.
In this initial position of equality, there would be totally free, completely rational homunculi that are interested in fostering their own interests. Rawls believes the free,...

...Utilitarianism is fine if your among the winners justice is better if you are not
Utilitarianism is the moral philosophy that the morally right action is that which leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The term justice means getting what you deserve both good and bad. However there is significant disagreement between justice theorists as to what causes who to deserve what. In this essay I will be discussing JohnRawls' concept of contract justice and Robert Nozick's concept of justice as entitlement. All political theories can be said to benefit some groups in society more than other and so there are winners and losers to all political philosophies.
Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy first advocated by Jeremy Bentham. It argues that the morally right action is that which creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Smart1973). Hence it could be described as a consequentialist theory of morality to which the goal is human happiness. Although utilitarianism can be used to make individual moral decisions for the purposes of this essay I will be referring to political utilitarianism: the morally right law or policy for a government to enact is that which leads to the greatest happiness to the greatest number. There have been many subsequent versions of utilitarianism that aim to make up for the shortcomings...

...JohnRawls
by
Ryan Abramovitz
For
Mr. J. Hubbert, Eds.
19 February 2013
John Bordley Rawls was born on February 21, 1921 in Baltimore, Maryland. His father, William Lee Rawls, was a prominent lawyer and his mother, Anna Abell Stump Rawls, was a chapter president of the League of Women Voters. He was the second of five sons, two of his brothers died in childhood because they both caught fatal illnesses from him. In 1928, JohnRawls contracted diphtheria. His brother, Bobby, visited him in his room and was fatally infected. The next winter, Rawls caught pneumonia. Another younger brother, Tommy, caught the illness from him and died. Rawls’s sharp sense of the arbitrariness of fortune may have stemmed in part from this early experience. His remaining, older brother attended Princeton for undergraduate studies and was a great athlete.
He started school in Baltimore where he was born but later changed to a school in Connecticut. He ended up graduating in 1939. Rawls then followed his brother to Princeton. Although Rawls played baseball, he was excessively modest about his success at that or at any other endeavor. He ended up graduating summa cum laude and was accepted into The Ivy Club. He was also selected to join the American Whig-Cliosophic Society. During his last two years at Princeton he became deeply...

...Veil of Ignorance Research Papers
Veil of ignorance: The exclusion of superfluous information such as age, sex, etc. allows for the determination of choice to be rendered justly and without the difference principle, which worsens the societal situation of those members who are worst off - JohnRawls. Rawls’ concept of the “veil of ignorance” is a model for adopting principles of justice and was derived from an unpublished document of the same title written by Wilfried Hinsch. The concept has been submitted as a solution for equalizing people’s personal interests and doctrines as a means for allowing the political conception of justice to be successful employed.
Rawls forwards the concept of the veil of ignorance as a solution to the problem of creating an equitable perspective among individuals for advancing political justice as fairness, a mechanism that Rawls suggests can only be accomplished through social cooperation. In essence, this scenario can only be reached hiding or disguising the comprehensive doctrines of all people behind a veil of ignorance, where they cannot work to undermine the relative concept of reasonable pluralism or the questionable notion of agreeing on comprehensive doctrines.
The concept of the veil of ignorance is relatively simple, in that it endeavors to eliminate any preconceived or customary advantages that one social, religious or political institution may have...

...Originally published in Philosophical Review Vol. LXVII. 1958. - Steve Bayne ( Hist-Analytic.org
JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS*
By JOHNRAWLS (1958)
1. It might seem at first sight that the concepts of justice and fairness are the same, and that there is no reason to distinguish them, or to say that one is more fundamental than the other. I think this impression is mistaken. In this paper I wish to show that the fundamental idea in the concept of justice is fairness; and I wish to offer an analysis of the concept of justice from this point of view. To bring out the force of this claim, and the analysis based upon it, I shall then argue that it is this aspect of justice for which utilitarianism, in its classical form, is unable to account, but which is expressed, even if misleadingly, by the idea of the social contract.
To start with I shall develop a particular conception of justice by stating and commenting upon two principles which specify it, and by considering the circumstances and conditions under which they may be thought to arise. The principles defining this conception, and the conception itself, are, of course, familiar. It may be possible, however, by using the notion of fairness as a framework, to assemble and to look at them in a new way. Before stating this conception, however, the following preliminary matters should be kept in mind.
Throughout I consider justice only as a virtue of social institutions, or what...